Search (25 results, page 1 of 2)

0.028473733 = product of:
  0.09491244 = sum of:
    0.008884916 = weight(_text_:information in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008884916 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
    0.026380861 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026380861 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
    0.059646662 = weight(_text_:ranking in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059646662 = score(doc=1173,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.35857132 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)

Abstract

Popular commercial on-line services such as Google, e-Bay, Amazon, and Netflix have evolved quickly over the last decade to help people find what they want, developing information retrieval strategies such as usefully ranked results, spelling correction, and recommender systems. Online library catalogs (OPACs), in contrast, have changed little and are notoriously difficult for patrons to use (University of California Libraries, 2005). Over the past year (June 2005 to the present), the Melvyl Recommender Project (California Digital Library, 2005) has been exploring methods and feasibility of closing the gap between features that library patrons want and have come to expect from information retrieval systems and what libraries are currently equipped to deliver. The project team conducted exploratory work in five topic areas: relevance ranking, auto-correction, use of a text-based discovery system, user interface strategies, and recommending. This article focuses specifically on the recommending portion of the project and potential extensions to that work.

0.0069587776 = product of:
  0.069587775 = sum of:
    0.069587775 = weight(_text_:ranking in 3549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069587775 = score(doc=3549,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.4183332 = fieldWeight in 3549, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3549)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

The starting-point of the paper is the debate recently developed in LIS literature about OPAC enhancement and the necessity to design OPACs based on search engines features. Supposed improving tools as relevance ranking and relevance feedback devices are examinated. Possible OPAC development lines, based on theoretical examination of relevance and pertinence concepts, according to Sarácevic view, and following semantics perspectives, are presented. Finally, enhancement of OPACs starting from their inner characteristics is proposed, and a plan to improve semantic search functions while maintaining existing indexing methodologies, that is document conceptual analysis, is outlined.

0.0056509455 = product of:
  0.028254727 = sum of:
    0.0073296824 = weight(_text_:information in 2016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0073296824 = score(doc=2016,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2016, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2016)
    0.020925045 = product of:
      0.04185009 = sum of:
        0.04185009 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 2016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04185009 = score(doc=2016,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.32441732 = fieldWeight in 2016, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2016)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

An increasing number of library user studies are employing ethnographic techniques as an alternative to more traditional qualitative methods such as surveys. Such techniques, however, are only beginning to see significant application to catalog user studies. Beginning with a discussion of the applied ethnographic method and its current usage within the field of Library and Information Science research, this article will assess methods that have traditionally been applied to studies of catalog users and present the case for the potential of an ethnographic approach for future catalog evaluation and design.

0.0055078003 = product of:
  0.027539002 = sum of:
    0.008884916 = weight(_text_:information in 8192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008884916 = score(doc=8192,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 8192, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8192)
    0.018654086 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018654086 = score(doc=8192,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 8192, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8192)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

Contends that library catalogues need to be seen as merely part of the information seeker's world and proposes the concept of a learning catalogue for library clients which will capture ways in which clients use data thus providing ideas for the further development of the system. Proposes a client centred system which is separated to maintain the bibliographic database from the mode of presentation of that data to the client. The designer of retrieval systems, by accepting that each client brings a unique view of the world's knowledge base to the information seeking activity, needs to acknowledge that this view of the world must be handled uniquely. By overlaying the idea of a learning component, it is possible to see how future queries might be handled more efficiently and the system can grow with client's developing needs

0.004989798 = product of:
  0.02494899 = sum of:
    0.010365736 = weight(_text_:information in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010365736 = score(doc=600,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
    0.014583254 = product of:
      0.029166508 = sum of:
        0.029166508 = weight(_text_:22 in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029166508 = score(doc=600,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

This article first compares and contrasts the essential, fundamental differences between traditional and digital information mediums. It then reexamines the role of the online public access catalog (OPAC), refines the definition of library's catalog, and advocates the addition of Internet resources within the OPAC. Next, the article describes the building of the Alex Catalog, a catalog of Internet resources in the in the form of MARC records. Finally, this article outlines a process of integrating the futher inclusion of other Internet resources into OPACs as well as some of the obstacles such a process manifests.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.143-170

0.0043825875 = product of:
  0.021912936 = sum of:
    0.0073296824 = weight(_text_:information in 3656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0073296824 = score(doc=3656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3656, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3656)
    0.014583254 = product of:
      0.029166508 = sum of:
        0.029166508 = weight(_text_:22 in 3656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029166508 = score(doc=3656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3656, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3656)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

Briefly follows the debate concerning: the relationship between traditional library OPACs and the WWW; possible replacement of USMARC format with SGML; and the possible demise of OPACs that do not migrate to the WWW. Discusses the approach taken by the Text encoding Initative (TEI) in their use of a mandatory TEI header in their standard SGML application as the first since CIP to explore attaching bibliographic information to the item itself to assist cataloguing

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.22, nos.3/4

0.0041420846 = product of:
  0.041420847 = sum of:
    0.041420847 = product of:
      0.082841694 = sum of:
        0.082841694 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 6396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.082841694 = score(doc=6396,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.6421798 = fieldWeight in 6396, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6396)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Library catalogues have existed for centuries, but only in recent times have attempts been made to evaluate their effectiveness as finding tools. Librarians want to know how well the catalogue performs, how it is used and with what success, and its major problems and limitations. Discusses evaluation of library catalogues from the users' point of view and describes the functions of the catalogue, methods for evaluation and their characteristics

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Evaluation of library catalogues from the users' point of view

0.0039764442 = product of:
  0.03976444 = sum of:
    0.03976444 = weight(_text_:ranking in 2295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03976444 = score(doc=2295,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.23904754 = fieldWeight in 2295, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2295)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Die Überführung der konventionellen Zettelkataloge in weltweit frei zugängliche Online-Kataloge zählt zu den größten Errungenschaften der Bibliotheksautomatisierung. Seit den ersten Implementierungen in den siebziger Jahren des letzten Jahrhunderts wurden die Programmfunktionen der "elektronischen Zettelkästen" stetig ausgebaut. Heutige Kataloge bilden den Kern integrierter Bibliothekssysteme, die sowohl die innerbetrieblichen als auch die geschäftsübergreifenden Prozesse unterstützen - angefangen von der Erwerbung über die Katalogisierung bis hin zur Ausleihe von Medien. Die Entwicklung der Bibliothekssysteme orientierte sich lange Zeit ausschließlich an bibliothekarischen Anforderungen. Die Bedürfnisse der Nutzer fanden kaum Berücksichtigung oder wurden in einigen Bereichen gänzlich außer Acht gelassen. Es ist daher nicht verwunderlich, dass ein Großteil der heutigen Benutzer Internet-Suchmaschinen als Einstieg für ihre Literaturrecherche verwendet. Internet-Suchmaschinen haben in den letzten zehn Jahren den Prozess der Informationsrecherche revolutioniert. Bekanntestes Beispiel ist der Weltmarktführer Google, der in Deutschland knapp 90 Prozent der an Suchmaschinen gerichteten Anfragen beantwortet. Der große Erfolg von Google gründet sich im Wesentlichen auf vier Faktoren: leichte Bedienbarkeit, Schnelligkeit der Suche, Größe des Indexvolumens und relevanzbezogene Ranking-Algorithmen. Insbesondere die von Internet-Suchmaschinen standardmäßig vorgenommene Sortierung der Treffer nach Relevanz hat das Suchverhalten der Nutzer nachhaltig beeinflusst. So zeigen verschiedene Studien, dass die Benutzer in der Regel nur zwei bis drei Begriffe in das einzeilige Suchformular eingeben und sich dann anschließend auf die Treffer beschränken, die ohne Scrollen zu erreichen sind. Durchschnittlich werden daher pro Recherche lediglich fünf Treffer angeklickt und gesichtet. Der gesamte Vorgang dauert nur etwa 15 Sekunden. Wird das Gesuchte in dieser Zeit nicht gefunden, wird die Suche abgebrochen oder modifiziert. Das bei den Suchmaschinen zur Gewohnheit gewordene Suchverhalten wird von den Nutzern zunehmend auch auf andere Recherchesysteme übertragen. Bibliotheken und Softwarehersteller von Bibliothekssystemen haben diesen Trend erkannt und in den letzten Jahren verstärkt damit begonnen, ihre Suchsysteme an die geänderten Nutzungsgewohnheiten der Endanwender anzupassen.

0.0038879027 = product of:
  0.019439513 = sum of:
    0.00897699 = weight(_text_:information in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00897699 = score(doc=1172,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.16628155 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
    0.0104625225 = product of:
      0.020925045 = sum of:
        0.020925045 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020925045 = score(doc=1172,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.16220866 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

This think piece tells why the online library catalog fell from grace and why new directions pertaining to cataloging simplification and primary sources will not attract people back to the online catalog. It proposes an alternative direction that has greater likelihood of regaining the online catalog's lofty status and longtime users. Such a direction will require paradigm shifts in library cataloging and in the design and development of online library catalogs that heed catalog users' longtime demands for improvements to the searching experience. Our failure to respond accordingly may permanently exile scholarly and scientific information to a netherworld where no one searches while less reliable, accurate, and objective sources of information thrive in a paradise where people prefer to search for information.
The impetus for this essay is the library community's uncertainty regarding the present and future direction of the library catalog in the era of Google and mass digitization projects. The uncertainty is evident at the highest levels. Deanna Marcum, Associate Librarian for Library Services at the Library of Congress (LC), is struck by undergraduate students who favor digital resources over the online library catalog because such resources are available at anytime and from anywhere (Marcum, 2006). She suggests that "the detailed attention that we have been paying to descriptive cataloging may no longer be justified ... retooled catalogers could give more time to authority control, subject analysis, [and] resource identification and evaluation" (Marcum, 2006, 8). In an abrupt about-face, LC terminated series added entries in cataloging records, one of the few subject-rich fields in such records (Cataloging Policy and Support Office, 2006). Mann (2006b) and Schniderman (2006) cite evidence of LC's prevailing viewpoint in favor of simplifying cataloging at the expense of subject cataloging. LC commissioned Karen Calhoun (2006) to prepare a report on "revitalizing" the online library catalog. Calhoun's directive is clear: divert resources from cataloging mass-produced formats (e.g., books) to cataloging the unique primary sources (e.g., archives, special collections, teaching objects, research by-products). She sums up her rationale for such a directive, "The existing local catalog's market position has eroded to the point where there is real concern for its ability to weather the competition for information seekers' attention" (p. 10). At the University of California Libraries (2005), a task force's recommendations parallel those in Calhoun report especially regarding the elimination of subject headings in favor of automatically generated metadata. Contemplating these events prompted me to revisit the glorious past of the online library catalog. For a decade and a half beginning in the early 1980s, the online library catalog was the jewel in the crown when people eagerly queued at its terminals to find information written by the world's experts. I despair how eagerly people now embrace Google because of the suspect provenance of the information Google retrieves. Long ago, we could have added more value to the online library catalog but the only thing we changed was the catalog's medium. Our failure to act back then cost the online catalog the crown. Now that the era of mass digitization has begun, we have a second chance at redesigning the online library catalog, getting it right, coaxing back old users, and attracting new ones. Let's revisit the past, reconsidering missed opportunities, reassessing their merits, combining them with new directions, making bold decisions and acting decisively on them.

0.0024872115 = product of:
  0.024872115 = sum of:
    0.024872115 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024872115 = score(doc=366,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 366, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=366)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Auf dem Hintergrund der aktuellen OPAC-Entwicklung in Deutschland werden im ersten Teil einzelne Aspekte des OPAC-Designs kommentiert. Es wird u.a. auch auf Möglichkeiten einer Standardisierung der Schnittstelle Retrieval-Software / Benutzeroberfläche eingegangen. Die derzeit dominierenden Online-Kataloge sind für eine Massenbenutzung nur bedingt geeignet, da sie in hohem Maße fehlerintolerant sind, eine Analyse nach Suchfeldern verlangen und mit grundsätzlichen Mängeln der Boole'schen Suchlogik behaftet sind. Im zweiten Teil werden werden Alternativen diskutiert, zum einen in Form eines alphabetisch sortierten Online-Katalogs, zum anderen in Form intelligenter bibliographischer Auskunftssysteme, die Ähnlichkeitssuchen bzw. sog. 'Closest-Match-Suchen' gestatten. Hierzu werden verschiedene Konzepte und Vorschläge vorgestellt

0.0016666576 = product of:
  0.016666576 = sum of:
    0.016666576 = product of:
      0.033333153 = sum of:
        0.033333153 = weight(_text_:22 in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033333153 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.97-103

0.0016666576 = product of:
  0.016666576 = sum of:
    0.016666576 = product of:
      0.033333153 = sum of:
        0.033333153 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033333153 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

22. 2.2009 18:50:43

0.0015545072 = product of:
  0.015545071 = sum of:
    0.015545071 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015545071 = score(doc=4001,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4001, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4001)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Das Exzellenzcluster Kognitive Interaktionstechnologie (CITEC) an der Universität Bielefeld beschäftigt sich seit 2013 mit der virtuellen Realität (VR). Ausgehend von konkreten Projektkooperationen (Publikations- und Forschungsdatenmanagement) mit der Universitätsbibliothek ist die Idee entstanden, mit der in 2016 neu angebotenen Konsumer-VR-Hardware die im Labor entwickelten Interaktionstechniken auf geeignete Szenarien im Bereich von bibliothekarischen Umgebungen anzuwenden. Als interessantes Anwendungsgebiet kristallisierte sich im gemeinsamen Diskurs die Literatursuche heraus: Als Suchsystem wurde die Bielefelder BASE-Datenbank (d.i. Bielefeld Academic Search Engine mit inzwischen mehr als 100 Mio. indexierten Dokumenten) ausgewählt. Diese Auswahl erfolgte vor dem Hintergrund, dass sich die von zahlreichen externen Institutionen bereits genutzte API-Schnittstelle als universell und robust erwiesen hat und umfangreiche Funktionen bereitstellt. Auf der Grundlage der umfangreichen theoretischen und praktischen Erfahrungen des CITEC mit VRTechniken wurde der Prototyp für eine virtuelle Suchumgebung realisiert, der ein Retrieval in einem Suchraum von Online-Dokumenten erlaubt. Die Nutzerinnen und Nutzer können die Suchanfrage explorativ zusammenstellen und dabei die Ergebnisse intuitiv verwalten. Unterstützt werden sie dabei durch Ergebnisanzeige, Sortierung, Optimierung des Suchergebnisses mittels Suchverfeinerung (Drilldown-basiert) oder Anfrageerweiterung und Wiederverwendung von abgelegten Ergebnissen. Gleichzeitig wird der Zugriff- und Lizenzstatus visualisiert und die Detailanzeige der Metadaten des Objektes integriert.

0.0014659365 = product of:
  0.014659365 = sum of:
    0.014659365 = weight(_text_:information in 2777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014659365 = score(doc=2777,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 2777, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2777)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Imprint

Medford, N.J. : Information Today

0.0014659365 = product of:
  0.014659365 = sum of:
    0.014659365 = weight(_text_:information in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014659365 = score(doc=1878,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

The quality of large catalogs is uneven and often low, but this issue is underrated and understudied. Library catalogs often fail to communicate correct and clear information to users and their low quality is not simply due to faults, duplications, and so on but also to unwise cataloging standards and policies. While there is plenty of uncontrolled information about books and other publications, the need for good-quality bibliographic information is apparent and library catalogs may provide a trustworthy map of the publishing output, with full control of editions, works, authors, and so on and effective navigation functions, which are lacking in today's information-rich environment.

0.0010470975 = product of:
  0.010470974 = sum of:
    0.010470974 = weight(_text_:information in 8011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010470974 = score(doc=8011,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 8011, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8011)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Source

Library and information science. 1990, no.28, S.11-20

0.0010470975 = product of:
  0.010470974 = sum of:
    0.010470974 = weight(_text_:information in 122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010470974 = score(doc=122,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 122, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=122)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

0.0010365736 = product of:
  0.010365736 = sum of:
    0.010365736 = weight(_text_:information in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010365736 = score(doc=5612,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5612)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Advances in computer and communication technology technology have had an important impact on OPACs. The client server architecture model, the Internet, protocols, and standards such as Z39.50 have resulted in newly designed interfaces which reduce syntactic and semantic knowledge required to conduct effective online searches. Experimental OPACs have been developed in an attempt to assist users in conceptual transformation of their information needs into searchable queries. These experiments are based primarily on determining users' behaviour at the OPAC terminal, which needs much further study. Other non traditional models for storing and retrieving information should be considered to create an intuitive OPAC

9.068131E-4 = product of:
  0.0090681305 = sum of:
    0.0090681305 = weight(_text_:information in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0090681305 = score(doc=2843,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Purpose - Library online public access catalogues (OPACs) are considered to be unattractive in comparison with popular internet sites. In 2000, the authors presented some suggestions on how library catalogues should change. Have librarians actually made their OPACs more user-friendly by adopting techniques and technologies already present in other information resources? This paper aims to address these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The characteristics of four OPACs, one online bookstore and two internet search engines are analyzed. The paper reviews some of the changes and directions suggested by researchers and adds some of authors own. All this is in the hope that library catalogues will survive "Google attack." Findings - Changes are identified in the information services studied over a seven-year period. Least development is found in library catalogues. Suggestions are made for library catalogues of the future. Research limitations/implications - A library catalogue, a web search engine and an internet bookstore cannot be compared directly because of differences in scope. But features from each could be fruitfully used in others. Practical implications - OPACs must be both attractive and useful. They should be at least as easy to use as their competitors. With the results of research as well as the knowledge librarians have many years, the profession should be able to develop better OPACs than we have today and regain lost ground in the "competition" for those with information needs. Originality/value - A comparison of OPAC features in 2000 and 2007, even if subjective, can provide a panoramic view of the development of the field.

8.333288E-4 = product of:
  0.008333288 = sum of:
    0.008333288 = product of:
      0.016666576 = sum of:
        0.016666576 = weight(_text_:22 in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016666576 = score(doc=2672,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2672, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2672)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

22. 2.2009 19:40:38